"A critical issue that has been addressed neither theoretically nor empirically is that compared with flexible processing, engaging in persistent and controlled processing is rather costly—it requires executive control and working memory capacity and taxes cognitive resources and energy (Bohner, Moskowitz, & Chaiken, 1995; Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Evans, 2003; Koch et al., 2009, 2008; Winkielman et al., 2003). From a conservation of energy perspective (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), it follows that people are more reluctant— consciously or unconsciously—to engage in such effortful and persistent processing, which may explain why approach-motivated individuals are generally more creative than avoidance-motivated individuals. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Compared with approach motivation, avoidance motivation has often been related to reduced creativity because it evokes a relatively inflexible processing style. This finding seems inconsistent with the dual pathway to creativity model, which poses that both flexible and persistent processing styles can result in creative output. Reconciling these inconsistencies, the authors hypothesized that avoidance-motivated individuals are not unable to be creative, but they have to compensate for their inflexible processing style by effortful and controlled processing. Results of 5 experiments revealed that when individuals are avoidance motivated, they can be as creative as when they are approach motivated, but only when creativity is functional for goal achievement, motivating them to exert the extra effort (Experiments 1-4). The authors found that approach motivation was associated with cognitive flexibility and avoidance motivation with cognitive persistence (Experiment 1), that creative tasks are perceived to be more difficult by avoidance- than by approach-motivated individuals, and that avoidance-motivated individuals felt more depleted after creative performance (Experiment 2a, 2b, and 3). Finally, creative performance of avoidance-motivated individuals suffered more from a load on working memory (Study 4). The present results suggest that for people focusing on avoiding negative outcomes, creative performance is difficult and depleting, and they only pay these high cognitive costs when creativity helps achieving their goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 05/2012; 103(2):242-56. DOI:10.1037/a0028442 · 5.08 Impact Factor
"Author's personal copy information. Unlike Koch et al. (2009), who had their participants walk a few steps (forward or backward) before completing a set of Stroop items, our induction allowed each comparison information to be displayed while participants were moving toward or away from comparison information. Consequently, our participants experienced approach and avoidance during the acquisition of information. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Could it be that walking toward (vs. away) someone else changes your self-evaluation in the direction of what this person is? We answer positively and argue that approach movements lead to self-evaluative assimilation (a higher self-evaluation with a high vs. a low standard), while avoidance movements lead to self-evaluative contrast (a lower self-evaluation with a high vs. a low standard). Hence, we predict that approach/avoidance moderates the impact of comparison information on self-evaluation. To test this idea, participants were either primed with approach or avoidance before processing comparison information (Study 1) or physically had to walk toward or away from this information (Studies 2 and 3). Results on self-evaluated adjustment (Studies 1 and 2) and self-evaluated attractiveness measures (Study 3) confirmed our predictions. These studies suggest ways to behave to self-evaluate positively when hearing about others.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 01/2011; 47(1):241-245. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.013 · 2.22 Impact Factor
"), wohingegen abstrakte Metaphern kaum in Verbindung mit Bewegungen innerhalb der sagittalen Achse untersucht wurden (eine Ausnahme bilden die Arbeiten von Koch et al. (2009), die zeigen, dass Rückwärtsgehen mit der Einnahme eines vorsichtigeren kognitiven Modus einhergeht). Laut Bartenieff und Lewis (1980) sowie Tversky (2008) "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In der vorliegenden Studie wurde der Einfluss von kongruenten und inkongruenten Bewegungs-Begriffspaarungen auf die Reaktionszeiten von n = 43 Versuchspersonen untersucht. Im Rahmen eines Stroop-Tasks wurden den Probanden Begriffe (z.B. arm, Vorstoß) mit Konnotationen zu vertikalen (oben -unten) oder sagittalen (vorne -hinten) Bewegungen in jeweils zwei verschiede-nen Farben präsentiert. Mithilfe eines Schiebereglers sollten die Probanden die Begriffe aus-schließlich entsprechend ihrer Farbe durch einen Anschlag am vorderen/oberen oder hinteren/ unteren Ende der Bahn des Reglers kategorisieren. Bei kongruenten Bewegungs-Begriffspaarun-gen (z.B. Begriff Vorstoß -Bewegung nach vorne) reagierten die Probanden erwartungsgemäß schneller als bei inkongruenten Bewegungs-Begriffspaarungen (z.B. Begriff Vorstoß -Bewegung nach hinten). Dabei lag der Effekt für die vertikale Bedingung bei p < .05 und für die sagittale Bedingung bei p < .10. The present study measured the influence of congruent versus incongruent movement – meaning pairings on reaction times on a categorization task (stroop task). Movement related words corresponding to the vertical axis (up – down axis; e.g., happiness – grief; heaven – hell) and to the sagittal axis (back – front axis; e.g., next year – last year; decided -hesitant) were presented in different colours and participants had to react with a directional movement on the basis of the colour of the words and unrelated to the content. By this means, congruent and incongruent movement -meaning trials emerged, and content was secured to be processed only implicitly, on the "unconscious" level. On congruent trials (e.g., happiness – upward movement), participants reacted faster than on incongruent trials (e.g., hesitant – forward movement). The effect for the vertical movement condition was p < .05, and for the sagittal movement condition p < .10.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.